Re: OWNERSHIP: Re: Proposal to Enlist a Moderator for the Ownership Group

["Rodney Shakespeare" <Rodney.Shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Keith,
    Ryan demands the right to say what he likes and to have everything
remain in the archive, yet denies to others the same right in respect of his
own social credit elist where he deletes hundreds of emails (only Ryan
himself knows the exact number)  You do not appear to be willing to do
anything about that.

    Your email is long on comment and very short on addressing the key issue
and its possible solution.

Rodney.

PS    Only last Wednesday I had a most pleasant lunch with Shann Turnbull.
We discussed endogenous loans (as defined) and their implications.    I
offered to discuss this matter on Ownership if people showed that they had
read the relevant background material and the group obviously wanted the
matter discussed.

    Nobody indicated a desire to have the subject discussed yet it is making
very considerable progress in the world (and Shann and I met to discuss how
to further that progress).

    Since nobody took up my offer, I no longer feel under any obligation to
inform, and discuss with,  Ownership.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>
To: <rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>; <stevenieman@mac.com>;
<thirdway@cesj.org>; <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>; <ejdodson@comcast.net>;
<john@medaille.com>; <iowaequity@yahoo.com>; <Adavans@aol.com>;
<dspitzle@davidaspitzley.org>; <wmklinck@shaw.ca>;
<sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>; <hermann@picknowl.com.au>; <Matvox@aol.com>;
<chickhurst@shaw.ca>; <jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>;
<marketnr@iafrica.com>; <LArthur@uwic.ac.uk>; <radudelona@yahoo.com>;
<joseph@thepowerpoint.com>; <rneece@esopadvisors.com>;
<greg27241@yahoo.com>; <Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk>; <ros@globalnet.co.uk>;
<m.gaffney@pe.net>; <ahartheimer@yahoo.com>; <cgbetit@vermontel.net>;
<lewisma9@msu.edu>; "Dan Bell" <dbell@kent.edu>; <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
Cc: <jlogue@kent.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: OWNERSHIP: Re: Proposal to Enlist a Moderator for the Ownership
Group


> Dear Dan,
>
> I have not been following recent activity closely, dipping in mainly when
I
> see postings that I expect to have cogent substance (e.g. Ed Dodson), but
I
> have been generally aware of the tone and some of the consequences.  When
I
> saw that Alan had volunteered to moderate I could only shudder at what he
> would be up against as a referee.  The amount of work entailed in your
> suggested procedure when the fur is flying would be a real headache and a
> major time consumer, speaking from some more than trivial experience with
> these extreme partisans.
>
> Without  having checked the archive to verify, I conjecture that most of
the
> complaints and demands for imposition of a moderator have come from Norm
> Kurland and his allies, supported by Rodney.  I very much doubt that any
> neutral moderator could satisfy Norm, for I have myself been bitterly
> accused of ad hominem  attacks for simply pointing out that his reasoning
is
> faulty.  An acceptable moderator would therefore have to blot out anything
> that got under Norm's skin. In the earliest days of  the Ownership wrangle
> the moderator had no powers to reject messages and operated only by making
> comment about the standards and departures therefrom of intellectual
rigor,
> on the presumption that truth-seeking was what we were on about.  That
> prompted howls of outrage and calls for my removal.  There was a pause in
> the action when a partisan from Norm's side volunteered to explore with me
> the meaning of intellectual rigor in social science via readings in the
> subject.  Richard Stutsman made that honest effort, and when he saw where
it
> led he realized that the case for Norm's side was indeed vulnerable to
some
> truth tests and announced that he would therefore not be able to be their
> intellectual champion.  Silence.  A few days later, however, he came back
to
> say that in spite of reason having destroyed his faith, he still wanted to
> gather with the faithful and so was welcomed back into the fold.
>
> By that time the demonstration was iron clad that the Binary Economics
> "discussion" is a partisan cause and that Norm and Rodney expected to use
> the COG facility to propagate the faith rather than to critically examine
it
> in comparison to near alternatives like that of Shann Turnbull, for
example.
> To my regret, Shann could hardly get his voice heard over the din raised
by
> getting to that point.  I suspect that if persons on the list other than
the
> extreme partisans are calling for a moderator, it is because they would
like
> to have some reasoned discussion of less inflammatory ideas.  And maybe it
> happens from time to time. John Medaille seems to have made a bit of
> progress in getting comment on his education initiative. In general,
> however, it is the energy of the provocateers and their outraged targets
who
> dominate discussion, and I don't see how that can be changed so long as
the
> partisans find any subject under discussion to tickle their own fancy.
The
> partisans have their own camp followers and they (Norm in particular in
the
> old days) use the COG forum to grandstand, showing their virtue and
courage
> in the face of the specious and devious sophists (economists and other
> intellectuals) whose mission is prevent truth and light from breaking
> through. In Rodney's view, anyone who questions his reasoning is opposed
to
> the idea of more broadly spread ownership of capital.
>
> As you have pointed out, the "Economics of Empowerment" window with
Richard
> Stutsman as moderator was initiated so that those persons discomfitted by
> the demonstration that Binary Economics is non-rigorous could gather to
lick
> their wounds, reaffirm their faith and build a productive campaign in
> support of the general COG goal of spreading capital ownership. The last
> time I looked, it was still silent as a tomb.  Participants in this
current
> flurry of activity on Ownership could go there if they want to have a
quiet
> discussion, but I'll bet few elect to do so.  If Rodney's offer to
moderate
> is accepted, the autocratic powers he demands will certainly make the
> discussion more sedate, because it is quite clear that what he wants to do
> is banish the gadfly, as he has already done in setting up the COG Money
> Reform window.  I suggest that if several participants here want to have
> Rodney as moderator, the facility is already set up and they can go there.
> The COG facility is a very good one, and I am sure that is why people like
> to use it as opposed to more ephemeral and less reliable services like
> elistas.  I strenuously oppose Rodney's proposal to cleanse the archive of
> content he doesn't like.
>
> While as noted I have not looked at a lot of the recent dialogue, I do
know
> that Bill Ryan can be extremely rude, sometimes wrong but never admits it,
> applies standards to others that he doesn't always keep himself, and is
> obsessed by his own version of juvenile hero worship (e.g Kelso is a
> plagiarist but Douglas is an honest scholar who didn't happen to mention
> Mitchell Innes).  Nevertheless, he does work hard and does dig up the
> information that bears on his accusations.  And he doesn't seem to come up
> utterly wrong very often, when I have been looking.  The admissions he has
> jarred out about the commercial interests of the CESJ, for example, do
> provide some understanding of Norm's extreme attachment to someof his
> "ideas".  That's no scandal, in my opinion--a far cry from the Richard
> Scrushy standard of our times, but why am I not surprised at the faint
aura
> of hypocrisy in the noble cause?
>
> So, you have some people promoting a cause and Bill Ryan attacking it.
That
> is the essence of what the forum was about, but the pit bull tactics are
> offensive, to onlookers as well as victims.  A moderator would have a very
> difficult time when both sides want to scream.  What's he to do? Tell both
> sides to go to their respective corners and write an essay of invective
that
> could be published in Harper's Magazine?  I think that the onlookers who
are
> offended by the fireworks should just enter the fray if it evokes that
much
> interest, pour out some contempt on either or both of the offenders, and
> push into the debate with their own choice of subject matter.
>
> Something that you might do, Dan, that would help clarify things to some
> people, me in particular perhaps, is to "come clean" about the
relationship
> of COG to Norm Kurland.  I know that he is a veteran in the cause, and
> therefore doubtless had a lot to do with getting COG established, but is
he
> a financial sponsor?  I ask this because he has always talked as if it
were
> his right to prevail, and runs whining to John Logue whenever discussion
> isn't going his way and he doesn't have quite enough grounds or powers to
> make good on his threats of a libel suit.
>
> Keith Wilde
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dan Bell" <dbell@kent.edu>
> To: <rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>; <stevenieman@mac.com>;
> <thirdway@cesj.org>; <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>; <ejdodson@comcast.net>;
> <john@medaille.com>; <iowaequity@yahoo.com>; <Adavans@aol.com>;
> <dspitzle@davidaspitzley.org>; <wmklinck@shaw.ca>;
> <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>; <hermann@picknowl.com.au>;
> <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>; <Matvox@aol.com>; <chickhurst@shaw.ca>;
> <jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>;
<marketnr@iafrica.com>;
> <LArthur@uwic.ac.uk>; <radudelona@yahoo.com>; <joseph@thepowerpoint.com>;
> <rneece@esopadvisors.com>; <greg27241@yahoo.com>; <Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk>;
> <ros@globalnet.co.uk>; <m.gaffney@pe.net>; <ahartheimer@yahoo.com>;
> <cgbetit@vermontel.net>; <lewisma9@msu.edu>
> Cc: <jlogue@kent.edu>
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:54 AM
> Subject: Proposal to Enlist a Moderator for the Ownership Group
>
>
> > Dear Ownership Group Participant,
> >
> > Following a loose interpretation of the old adage that "possession is
90%
> > of the law,"
> > I would like to consult those present and past subscribers who have sent
> > at least one
> > message to ownership@cog.kent.edu within the past 12 months.
> >
> > From time to time over the years, some participants on this list have
> > expressed their
> > concern that there are no limits on how abusive or offensive a message
can
> > be. A few
> > have directly complained, others have "voted with their feet" by simply
> > unsubscribing.
> >
> > Alan Avans has expressed a willingness to serve as a moderator for this
> > group,
> > taking on the role of previewing messages before allowing them to be
> > relayed to
> > the list. The intention is not to censor ideas, but rather to eliminate
> > unnecessary
> > personal attacks. My recommendation would be that when Alan does not
feel
> > that
> > a message should be approved he contact the sender and explain the
reason
> > for
> > not approving the message.
> >
> > This allows the sender the opportunity to edit his or her own message,
> > removing
> > the portion that might be interpreted by some as a personal attack or
> > offensive, and
> > still being able to get his or her discussion-related ideas expressed.
> >
> > Please respond to me at dbell@kent.edu to express your opinion about
> > implementing
> > this proposal. You can send it only to me if you prefer to have your
> > comments remain
> > confidential, or you can copy it to the others, as you like.
> >
> > I am sending this to 28 participants. I would hope to get responses from
> > at least 14
> > of you and will take action based on the majority of the responses.
> >
> > Thank you for your patience with this process.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Bell
> > Senior Program Coordinator
> > Ohio Employee Ownership Center
> > Kent State University
> > Kent, OH 44242
> > (330) 672-0333 << Direct number!
> > (330) 672-3028 general office number
> > (330) 672-4063 fax
> > dbell@kent.edu
> > http://www.kent.edu/oeoc/
> > http://cog.kent.edu
> >
>
> To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
> http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
> To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
> with a single line in the body of the message that says:
> unsubscribe ownership
>


To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
with a single line in the body of the message that says:
unsubscribe ownership